What the FFRF doesn’t know about the Declaration of Independence and national anthem: Some thoughts on the Lebanon High School graduation ceremony controversy

By now, I imagine most of my readers have heard about Principal Kevin Lowery’s controversial graduation ceremony speech, delivered at the Cowan Civil Center on May 23, to the students of Lebanon High School, Missouri. The Freedom From Religion Foundation published a letter on June 2, alleging that Principal Lowery had violated the US Constitution. Embarrassingly, the person who authored the letter appears not to know who wrote the American national anthem, and he also misquotes the American Declaration of Independence! The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is headed by husband-and-wife team Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor (pictured above), should be covering its collective face in shame. This will take a long time for the FFRF to live down. (The text of the FFRF’s letter can also be viewed here.)

For my part, I think Principal Lowery had every right to mention the fact that America’s Declaration of Independence (1776), national anthem (1814), Pledge of Allegiance (last altered in 1954), and official national motto (1956), all contain references to God. The principal was also perfectly correct in his observation that “God is reflected in the very fabric of our nation” – a point which I have argued in a previous post on the Founding Fathers, criticizing a misleading newspaper advertisement by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (New York Times, July 4, 2013, page A7). I do think, however, that he politicized the moment of silence which he asked students at the ceremony to observe, giving it an unnecessarily confrontationist tone. His claim that “we are told that it is inappropriate and even illegal to mention God at high school graduations” was also over the top: while the Supreme Court has ruled against prayer or any official endorsement of religion at high school graduations, there’s no law against mentioning God. Finally, while Principal Lowery’s concern for his students was very evident in his speech, I thought that his decision to reveal the contents of his prayer during the moment of silence was inappropriate. So I am not surprised that several non-religious students who were present at the ceremony have complained about the principal’s speech. Principal Lowery has since apologized for any offense that his comments may have caused, and has said he will strive to avoid causing offense in the future. For my part, I hope he finds a way to keep God in his graduation ceremony speeches, without getting up anyone’s nose.

In today’s post, however, I’d like to draw attention to the letter that the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent to the Superintendent of Lebanon R-III School District, alleging that Principal Lowery has violated the American Constitution. What I find comical about the letter, which was signed by FFRF attorney Patrick C. Elliott (and, I presume, vetted by its co-presidents before being released to the public), is that its inaccurate transcription of Principal Lowery’s speech reveals a profound ignorance of American history on the part of its author. It contains mistakes that a Grade 5 kid should be able to correct. Incidentally, had the author of the letter gone to the Website of Hemant Mehta, a.k.a. the Friendly Atheist, he would have discovered a more accurate transcription of Principal Lowery’s address, dated June 1, 2014 (although it does contain a couple of minor errors).

So let’s have a look at the FFRF’s appalling transcription of the principal’s speech, beginning with paragraph 1:

I’d like to remind our graduates that our nation’s motto is, in fact, “In God We Trust.” If you’re ever in doubt, just take a quick look at our nation’s currency and you’ll find out for yourself. A simpler phrase appears in the final stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner. Written in 1814 by Francis Scott P. and later adopted as the National Anthem on March 3, 1931 by U.S. President Herbert Hoover, the song contains an early reference to a variation of this phrase, “And this be our motto: ‘In god be our trust.'”

And here’s what Principal Lowery actually said. The speech captured on video begins mid-sentence with a reference to the Pledge of Allegiance, which, as most readers will be aware, was last changed on Flag Day in 1954, when the words “under God” were added:

… the most important line of all, “One Nation, Under God.”[Cheers and applause]In fact, I’d like to remind our graduates that our nation’s motto is, in fact, “In God We Trust.” If you’re ever in doubt, just take a quick look at our nation’s currency and you’ll find out for yourself. A similar phrase appears in the final stanza of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key and later adopted as the U.S. National Anthem on March 3, 1931 by U.S. President Herbert Hoover, the song contains an early reference to a variation of this phrase: “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.'”

So the FFRF thinks that America’s national anthem was written by Francis Scott P.? That one had me laughing out loud: a child could have corrected them on that point. And the FFRF got the last line of the fourth and final stanza of “The Star-Spangled Banner” wrong too: it’s “And this be our motto – ‘In God is our Trust'”.

The FFRF’s transcription of the second paragraph misquotes the American Declaration of Independence:

In one of the most famous sentences in American History, taken from our Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This passage has come to represent a moral standard to which the United States should always strive. And even though God is reflected in the very fabric of our nation, we are told that it is inappropriate and even illegal to mention God at high school graduations, let alone say a prayer. So while it would not be politically correct for us to have an official prayer this evening, I would like for us to have a moment of silence in honor of tonight’s graduates.

Here’s what Principal Lowery actually said:

And one of the most famous sentences in American history, taken from our Declaration of Independence, reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This passage has come to represent a moral standard to which the United States should always strive. And even though God is reflected in the very fabric of our nation, we are told that it is inappropriate and even illegal to mention God at high school graduations, let alone say a prayer. So while it would not be politically correct for us to have an official prayer this evening, I would like for us to have a moment of silence in honor of tonight’s graduates.

If the FFRF had chosen to look at an online image of the original version of the American Declaration of Independence (transcript available here), they would have noticed that “Creator” is spelled with a capital C. Also, the final version of the Declaration uses the word “unalienable,” as Principal Lowery correctly did in his graduation ceremony speech. (See here for more information.) Some earlier drafts of the Declaration used the word “inalienable,” and they also had the word “creator” written with a small “c”, but these were not the final version that was adopted.

But the most damaging part of the transcript was the third paragraph, which the FFRF transcribed in a way that made it look as though Principal Lowery was praying aloud in public, whereas he was doing nothing of the sort. After praying silently during a moment of reflection, he told the audience what he had asked God, when he prayed. Now, that might be inappropriate behavior for a public school principal, but it’s not a prayer, and therefore does not fall foul of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Here’s the FFRF’s transcript of the third paragraph:

Thank you. And just in case you’re interested, during my moment of silence, I gave thanks to God for these great students, their parents, their teachers, and for this community. [Applause.] Oh, I’m not finished. I ask God to protect these students as they go their separate ways into the world. I ask God to reveal Himself in every possible way, and I ask God to watch over them, to protect them, and to bless them with self-fulfillment, with compassion, inner peace, and personal prosperity. Thank you for indulging your thoughts I had during my moment of silence, and yes, God is still important, and let us not ever forget it.

And here’s what Principal Lowery actually said:

Thank you. And just in case you’re interested, during my moment of silence, I gave thanks to God for these great students, their parents, their teachers, and for this community. [Applause.] Oh, I’m not finished. I asked God to protect these students as they go their separate ways into the world. I asked God to avail Himself in every possible way, and I asked God to watch over them, to protect them, and to bless them with self-fulfillment, with compassion, inner peace, and personal prosperity. Thank you for indulging the thoughts I had during my moment of silence. And yes, God is still important, and let us not ever forget it.

To be as fair as possible, I should acknowledge that the Youtube clip of Principal Lowery’s speech isn’t clear enough to determine whether he said “ask” or “asked.” However, it should be obvious from the context that the FFRF transcript of the third paragraph makes no grammatical sense: it switches from the past tense (“I gave thanks to God for these great students”) to the present tense (“I ask God to protect these students as they go their separate ways into the world”), and back to the past tense again at the end (“Thank you for indulging your thoughts I had during my moment of silence”). The reference to “your thoughts I had” also makes no grammatical sense; it should be “the thoughts I had,” and the audio makes that clear.

I am forced to conclude that the FFRF did a very careless job of transcribing Principal Lowery’s speech, and in the process, revealed their rather limited knowledge of American history.

Professor Jerry Coyne, who first alerted the FFRF to Principal Lowery’s speech, argues that it’s a clear violation of the First Amendment:

What is most offensive is that Mr. Lowery not only called for a moment of silence (a common way around the prohibition of prayer in public schools), but then told the audience that he used his own moment of silence to ask for God’s blessing.

Lowery’s behavior during that graduation ceremony is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and of court decisions that prayer in public schools by officials of those schools is illegal.

The FFRF evidently concurs with Professor Coyne’s legal reasoning:

Mr. Lowery “gave thanks to God for these great students,” “ask[ed] God to reveal Himself in every possible way,” and also said “God is still important, and let us never forget it.” A reasonable observer would conclude that as principal, Mr. Lowery’s statements were being endorsed by the school. In addition, while a “moment of silence” during a graduation could be constitutionally permissible, it must not be used by school personnel to proselytize their own personal religious views, which is exactly what Mr. Lowery did…

Mr. Lowery acknowledges in his graduation speech that it is unconstitutional for school officials to pray at school-sponsored graduation events. Yet Mr. Lowery does exactly that by saying “during my moment of silence I gave thanks to God” and “God is still important, and let us not forget it.”

Regarding the narrow legal question of whether Principal Lowery was praying aloud in public, I have already argued above that he was doing nothing of the kind.

The FFRF states that “it is unconstitutional for school officials to pray at school-sponsored graduation events.” This is false. It is is unconstitutional for school officials to pray aloud at school-sponsored graduation events, and to ask students to pray. It is perfectly constitutional for a school official to pray silently, however.

The FFRF contends that Principal Lowery was proselytizing his own personal religious views, in saying what he did. However, nothing that he said identified him as a member of any particular religion, so this claim appears highly doubtful, legally speaking.

Regarding the broader legal question of whether Mr. Lowery’s statements about what he prayed for during the moment of silence could be reasonably viewed by a neutral observer as being endorsed by the school, I find it hard to offer an opinion. However, it seems to me that Principal Lowery is skating on thin legal ice, but just staying within the bounds of the law, as it currently stands.

In conclusion: I regard the attempts to bully Principal Lowery into refraining from all mention of God during future graduation ceremony speeches as odious and cowardly, and as tantamount to harassment. (See this post by Jerry Coyne for a particularly disgusting example: he took his revenge on a member of the Lebanon High School who wrote him an email asking whether Coyne was blogging during work hours, by posting the man’s photo on his Web page and revealing the name of the bank where he worked!) However, I also think that Principal Kevin Lowery should have shown greater tact and less stridency in the last part of his speech on the Youtube clip.

A point to be made is that it was not the intention that schools counted as the state. That the state pays for the schools doesn’t make it the institution of government as was meant simply by the founders. Otherwise one could not pray in a national park or crossing a bridge etc.
The founders were very protestant people and never imagine such a twisting of the constitution for anti Christian agendas.

Pardon, but with all due respect, the blunders in the FFRF reflect a fundamental unfamiliarity with key relevant materials, documents and context, which goes to credibility.

It is not nit-picking to note that they are so unfamiliar with the US National Anthem, that they do not recognise the name of its author. Similarly, the US Founders very definitely intended to refer to the Capital-C Creator in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, as the foundation of moral claims. In fact by asserting that certain morally tinged truths are self-evident, they directly implied that they can only be denied at the price of patent absurdity.

On this, we can address the IS-OUGHT gap, and in so doing note that Hume was a contemporary of the Fathers.

The bottomline of such an analysis is, first, that OUGHT is real, as real as that murder is wrong (note the first right listed, life). Second, that OUGHT can only be founded in a grounding IS in our world, that is inherently also a basis for OUGHT.

It can be reasonably shown that the only serious candidate to fill that tall bill, is the inherently good Creator God, who is a maximally great and necessary being. No other IS, has sufficient strength to properly bear the awesome weight of OUGHT.

In that context, which is at this stage the God of philosophy, it becomes readily apparent that here is an absurdity in the root of the FFRF’s work, asserting rights in ways and on a basis that undermines the foundation of rights.

And BTW, this actually also shows an absurdity in the very premise of that organisation embeded in its name.

God is indeed a key concept in Monotheistic religions, but God is not ONLY such a concept, God is foundational as an issue in philosophy also. Where, we have good reason to revert to God as a foundational aspect of a reasonable worldview, i.e. while it may not be possible to “prove” the existence of God to those determined to object in any possible way they can get away with, it is certainly not unreasonable to accept a converging body of evidence as warranting God’s reality to moral certainty. And, it is thus also entirely possible to discuss and respect or pray to or even worship God as a part of the cultural consensus on that philosophical understanding, without undue establishment of any Institutionalised religion as a Church of the United States. Which, was the actual proper meaning of the relevant clause of the first amendment in the US Bill of Rights of 1787 – 9.

If you doubt me on this, kindly observe

[a] This excerpt from the 1778 Articles of Confederation:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union . . . . In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

[b] the grand statement structure of the 1787 US Constitution, reflecting an older style of legal documents:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I – VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].

The highlighted phrase is significant, as it is a theological and covenantal term, not primarily a legal one. It acknowledges that the United States in the 1787th “year of our Lord” acknowledged God, and indeed the God of Covenant reflected in the Old and New Covenant/Testament framework, to be the God who undergirds nationhood, justice, liberty and so forth.

Where, this can be seen with greater force if we note the call to prayer issued by the US Congress to the nation in May 1776 over the name of John Hancock (the same who was first signatory to the US DOI), on the eve of the Declaration of Independence, which BTW makes absolutely clear what frame of thought shaped their acceptance of the words penned by Jefferson et al:

In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.

Notice, this is a call to a day of penitence, prayer and supplication of the blessings of God towards the restoration of peace . . . fighting had been going on for a year already . . . and the blessings of liberty. And, it is the context in which it can be fairly said that the USA was CONSCIOUSLY founded under God, understood as the God of covenant in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptural tradition, not just the generic God of phil. And remember, this is not a few dozen men in Philadelphia, it is a call tot he whole nation, a nation whose national awareness had been shaped in light of the Great Awakening of the 1740’s on, under the preaching of men such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield and the early Methodists.

Indeed, we may further identify the pivotal framework of ideas reflected here, as reflecting the covenantal theology of nationhood and government under God developed eand articulated through the Reformation period, and which would have come to America especially with the Pilgrims, the Puritans and the Presbyterians, though others would have been influenced.

Yes, the Black regiment of preachers was pivotal to the American Founding Era, and the US Revolution in material part was preached as a revival. Not least, by the very US Congress itself, even as it was entering upon the deliberations that issued in the Declaration of Independence when reconciliation with George III and his Ministers proved essentially impossible.

And, yes, a proper understanding of that framework and the distinction between a generally Judaeo-Christian understanding of God, nationhood and Government as well as of the basis for rights, duties and morality . . . one informed by an accurate knowledge of the relevant history . . . and the establishment of a Church of the USA is pivotal to being properly able to address matters of liberty, religion, philosophy, morality and government in our day.

Dr Torley is entirely correct to highlight that the FFRF has failed this test, spectacularly. Even, while daring to rebuke and threaten with legal action.

KF: EXCELLENT piece on the precepts upon which our nation was founded. It is tragic to see how so many Americans have a mistaken understanding of their own heritage and fall easy prey to the liars of FFRF and other revisionists. It is crystal clear that we ARE a nation under God, not under materialism. We must reject that, and we must not apologize for our heritage when confronted by the liars.

F/N: It is worth citing the text of the poem, Defence of Fort McHenry, written by attorney at law Francis Scott Key; in the rhythm of the British Tune, Anacreon in Heaven, on the occasion of its bombardment by a British force in an attempt to tale Baltimore in 1814 (shortly after the British had burned Washington) . . . just 200 years ago.

It was apparently first circulated as a broadside — a cheaply published one-sheet poster for people on the street, on Sept 17th 1814. That was of course the 27th anniversary of the 1787 signing of the Constitution. It was then picked up by newspapers and circulated far and wide. Given its rather fiery circumstances, that it should be a patriotic song celebrated with fireworks on the US Independence Day, is understandable.

Latterly, the poem has been sung to the tune, and was apparently re-titled as The Star-Spangled Banner by a Baltimore music store owner. Long after, having won its way into the hearts of the citizenry, it was officially recognised as the US National Anthem:

O say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation.Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

I trust that Mr Elliott et al, of FFRF, have enough decency to be deeply ashamed over their blunder.

F/N 2: Lift Every Voice and Sing, used especially by African Americans since its composition in 1899, for Lincoln’s birthday by James Weldon Johnson as the Black National Anthem, is also quite relevant — here, from the NAACP web site:

Lift ev’ry voice and sing,
‘Til earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the list’ning skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
Let us march on ’til victory is won.

Stony the road we trod,
Bitter the chastening rod,
Felt in the days when hope unborn had died;
Yet with a steady beat,
Have not our weary feet
Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?
We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
Out from the gloomy past,
‘Til now we stand at last
Where the white gleam of our bright star is cast.

God of our weary years,
God of our silent tears,
Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
Thou who has by Thy might
Led us into the light,
Keep us forever in the path, we pray.
Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met Thee,
Lest, our hearts drunk with the wine of the world, we forget Thee;
Shadowed beneath Thy hand,
May we forever stand,
True to our God,
True to our native land.

It seems the poems ans songs from the heart, shaped by adversity, speak far truer to the American founding and true national vision, than the cynically revisionised and secular humanist bowdlerised histories and talking points that are all too commonly passed off as gospel truth in our day.

PPS: In 1897, Johnson — a pioneering African American educator in Jacksonville Florida who introduced High School grades into the Elementary school of which he was principal — became the first black American to pass the Florida Bar Exam. Thus, again, this is a song written by a legal mind. Mr Elliott, attorney of FFRF, please have the decency to be ashamed.

Kindly explain to me, could the Lebanon Principal have quoted especially that third stanza, even as, on January 20, 2009, the Rev. Joseph Lowery recited it near-verbatim at President Obama’s Inauguration?

(Even, as you have objected and deemed effectively illegal, a near-verbatim citation from a stanza of the official US National Anthem, which happens to also be printed on your currency? What does this tell you about what you have been doing? What do you think it tells us? Why should we not see you as an agenda-driven angry radical more likely to wreak havoc rather than build a sound future?)

It is truly incredible that the United States has arrived at the point where words can be spoken that cause no harm, no riots, that are kindly intended, but which are deemed unconstitutional because of the addressee of those words.

If a principal were to address his graduating students rhetorically, “May these students be protected; be guided and cared for”, there is no problem. The moment the principal addresses those words to God, they are illegal.

Given that various atheist organisations deny the existence of God, one has got to wonder why it is that they object so stridently to God ever being addressed.

Perhaps those atheists have realized the truth of ‘will to power,’ a concept of Nihilism, and have dressed it up in the much more palatable form (though much less logical, if atheism is true) of Secular Humanism.